Online News & The Public Sphere

With explicit reference to the rise of online news,
consider the extent to which the Internet has had a
transformational effect on the media, and its
implications for public sphere theory
Dan Howarth
MA Media and Journalism
Newcastle University
2008
Contents
Abstract …………………………………………………………. 2
1.0 – Introduction …………………………………………........ 3
2.0 – Literature review ………………………………………… 6
2.1 – The Internet and new media …………………….. 6
2.2 – News and the role of the media ………………….11
2.3 – News on the Internet ………………………………15
2.4 – The public sphere ………………………………….29
2.5 – The concept of democracy ……………………….36
2.6 – The political economy of online news media ……41
2.7 – Summary ……………………………………………48
3.0 – Methodology and ethical considerations ………………50
4.0 – Discussion ………………………………………………...53
5.0 – Conclusion ………………………………………………..57
References ……………………………………………………...60
Appendix ………………………………………………………...67
Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 2
ABSTRACT
The rise of the Internet has brought with it a haze of theories about its ability
to create a networked society, banish systems of oppression, and enfranchise
the citizenry. The mass media was once identified as such a system of
oppression, but it now seems to have colonised the Internet. However, times
aren’t good for the media. Corporate pressures have led to an apparent
decline in professional journalism, and an increasingly alienated audience.
The question of whether the Internet can have a transformational effect on the
media has therefore never been more pertinent.
This study provides a comprehensive review of literature surrounding print
and online news media, the public sphere, democracy and the political
economy of the media, in addition to an empirical study of the online news
consumption habits of Internet users. Our findings suggest that the
transformational effects of the Internet are more idealistic than realistic,
although it contributes to a heightened sense of interactivity and transparency
in the media.
1.0 – INTRODUCTION
The mass media has long been criticised for the undemocratic role it plays in
society. The primary antagonist of the idyllic public sphere, it has power,
wealth and a stranglehold over the flow of information that is central to
democracy.
However, this tyrannical beast is not necessarily what it seems. Commercial
pressures have led to widespread costcutting, resulting in an apparent
decline in standards of journalism, and an increasingly disengaged audience.
Life for the media doesn’t seem to be as rosy as one would imagine.
At the same time, the rise of the Internet has brought about a new and highly
efficient mode of communication. Since its emergence as a popular medium
in the early 1990s, a number of grand, and often bizarre, theories have been
postulated about its potential impact on society.
The frenetic flood of sensationalism that met with its arrival pondered the
Internet’s potential to topple oppressive institutions, such as the media, and
empower the citizenry to build a digital society. Certainly, these ideas were
very much based in romantic notions of cyberspace, and informed by the
literature of cyberpunk, such as William Gibson’s dystopian novel
Neuromancer.
More recently, ideas about the Internet’s potential have been more grounded.
Although its interconnectivity and global outreach have led many
commentators to equate it with McLuhan’s ‘global village’, for example, or
Habermas’s ‘public sphere.’
Similarly, the arrival of online news has driven media commentators and
theorists into a frenzy in their efforts to characterize its features, and predict
the impact it will have on the future of the media. Of course, the Internet is a
relatively new phenomenon, and speculation still abounds as to its potential to
revolutionize the way we communicate.
This study will investigate whether the Internet has had a transformational
effect on the media, and the implications it raises for public sphere theory – an
issue that will necessitate a great deal of scope to consider the wide issues
affecting the media, and the ways in which the Internet may play a role.
In order to achieve this, it will be necessary to conduct a largescale literature
review, covering issues surrounding the Internet, mainstream news media,
online news media, the public sphere, democracy and political economy. This
study will then provide a smallscale quantitative study of the online news
consumption habits of Internet users, in an attempt to tie these practical and
theoretical strands together.
2.0 – LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 – The Internet and new media
We are on the verge of a revolution that is just as profound as
the change in economy that came with the industrial
revolution.
Al Gore, 1994 (cited in Lister 2003: 193)
Former US VicePresident Al Gore was, of course, referring to the Internet,
and its potential to reshape the global economy – one of many examples of
prophetic statements by a huge variety of individuals on how they believe the
Internet will affect the future.
The actual extent to which the Internet has had a transformational effect on
modern society is an issue of great debate between commentators. There is
little doubt that it has transformed the way we communicate and harvest
information – Deuze, for example, defines the Internet as a “communications
infrastructure” that allows us to “connect with other people, worldwide,
unhindered, in real time” (2003: 211) – but the question of whether it can be
considered a transformative technology as some theorists believe
(Wasserman 2006), in the same way as Gutenberg’s printing press (McLuhan
1962), is a matter of intense speculation.
Mosco states that a technology can only be considered truly transformative
when it “leaves mythology and enters banality” (2004: 19–20), which implies
that the full effect of the Internet can only be measured when it is no longer
sensationalised, and becomes accepted for its actual capabilities.
An example of this sensationalisation is what Meikle refers to as ‘cyberhype’,
a subgenre of writing that became popular with webprofessionals,
commentators and technology journalists when the Internet entered popular
culture in the mid1990s (Meikle 2002: 36). New York Times journalist Kevin
Keegan provides an example of cyberhype from 1995:
The Internet will eventually place so much power in the hands
of the citizenry that oppressive 20 th Century institutions –
government, public schools, the mass media – will crumble.
Keegan 1995
This sort of prediction seems very much based in anarchistic and anti
establishmentarian ideology, and is something Mosco would consider highly
mythological. It’s useful to compare it to a less complimentary observation by
Dean in 2000, which discusses the reality of Internet use by the public at the
time:
[The Internet] is a vast repository of porn and drivel… More
people use the web to fawn over celebrities and document
UFO sightings than, say, to grapple with the constitutional
implications of a recent Supreme Court decision.
cited in Lister et al 2003:184.
With this in mind, it seems unlikely that the Internet would empower the
citizenry to topple the mass media, as predicted by Keegan (1995). However,
it’s important to note that the rise of the Internet can be construed as taking
place in two distinct stages. Both Keegan and Dean’s remarks refer to the first
stage of the Internet, during the speculative boom that led to the ‘burst of the
dot come bubble’ in 2001 (Lister et al 2003: 211). The second and most
recent stage of the Internet is known as ‘Web 2.0’, which refers to the
Internet’s emergence as a platform – a change in how users utilise existing
online technology (O’Reilly 2005). In contrast to the Internet’s earlier phase of
development, Web 2.0 is associated with mass participation, convergence
and enhanced usability, leading to phenomena such as social networking, and
to the Internet’s ubiquity in society (ibid).
The rise of electronic communication has led to the use of the term ‘new
media’ to encompass the existence of media on the Internet and other similar
communications technologies (Lister et al 2003: 9). Pavlik defines new media
as “the convergence of computing, telecommunications and traditional media”
(1999: 54), however this sense of convergence implies that new media isn’t
new per sé, but rather a blending of preexisting media and technology.
This notion of ‘sameness’ rather than ‘newness’ informs Lister et al’s
discussion of remediation, in which they state that the refashioning of existing
media for a mass audience effectively renders the Internet as a “pointand
click magazine” (2003: 182). They cite Bolter and Grusin, who suggest that
the Internet simply remediates “the magazine, the newspaper and graphic
advertising” (ibid).
But of course, the process of remediation does not necessarily negate the
Internet’s ability to be considered a transformative technology. McLuhan
states that Gutenberg’s printing press distributed the written word to a mass
audience (1962) – a form of remediation in itself. For McLuhan, this had a
wider impact, transforming the public’s thought processes into a linear format
(ibid). Similarly, Lister et al suggest that new media are the “technological
correlative of postmodern thought”, with both sharing the characteristics of
“speed, flexibility, digitality and hypertextuality” (2003: 192). However, Lister et
al argue that, in this case, it is human thought patterns that influence the
shape of new media (2003: 215–6).
In terms of the Internet’s popularity in society, usage is growing rapidly.
Statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that 16.5 million
households in the UK now have access to the Internet, with 66 per cent of
adults using it every day (BBC News Online 2008). And Lister et al note that a
defining characteristic of Internet users is active, rather than passive,
consumption of content (2003: 177); with users actively seeking out content
that interests them, customising how and when they receive it, sharing it with
other users, and creating and sharing their own content (Allan 2006: 182).
With this high level of activity online, and millions of users representing every
possible political and social perspective, the Internet is as chaotic as it is
comprehensive. Kelly refers to it as “the largest working anarchy in the world”
(1995). Fundamentally, this chaos provides little threat to the ‘oppressive
institutions’, such as the mass media, who Keegan describes as at risk.
So whether the Internet can be considered a truly transformative technology
still remains to be seen. But despite its lack of ‘newness’, the Internet’s ability
to remediate existing forms of media to wider audiences, and empower these
audiences to interact and create their own content, will undoubtedly affect the
workings of the media. What seems certain from the research discussed here
is that the technological components of the Internet are less responsible for its
impact than the extraneous forces surrounding its usage – such as social,
political and economic factors (Allan 2006: 215–6). This idea will be
investigated in the following chapters.

2.2 – News and the role of the media
News media have garnered the authority of a political
institution, in part because of its [sic] standardized routines
and procedures.
Robinson (2007: 152)
The standardised routines and procedures Robinson mentions here are what
sets the mainstream media apart from other sources of content. Editorial
policy, journalistic codes of conduct, and news values ensure the credibility
and integrity of the media. But one of the key issues affecting the media is an
apparent decline in standards of serious journalism over recent years. Street
states that there has been a substantial decline in the quality of investigative
journalism in politics (2001: 150), for example, and according to McChesney
(2001), this concern is widespread amongst theorists and media
commentators:
The measure of the decline in professional journalism is
indicated in every major study of journalists over the past
decade.
McChesney (2001: 102)

Interestingly, McChesney points out that this issue has only emerged since
the early 1990s – a few years prior to the birth of the Internet as a popular
medium.
Perhaps more worryingly, Deuze points out that this also corresponds with a
decline in the readership of newspapers and viewing of television news,
particularly amongst younger generations (Deuze 2005: 322).
Lewis et al note that this decline is in the standard of information that goes
into a news story, rather than the presentation of the story itself (2008: 42),
which suggests that the media’s idea of what is acceptable has changed over
time; and more specifically since the early 1990s (McChesney 2001: 102). It
is useful, therefore, to consider the news values proposed by Galtung and
Ruge in 1965, and assess how they differ from contemporary news values.
Harcup and O’Neill state that Galtung and Ruge’s news values are “a
standard definition of what constitutes news in academic research”, although
they are hypothetical, and not backed up by empirical evidence (2001: 262,
267). According to Harcup and O’Neill, Galtung and Ruge were primarily
concerned with the reporting of foreign news and events, and they failed to
account for news about entertainment and issues surrounding the corporate
agenda of newspapers (ibid: 277). Harcup and O’Neill’s own empirical study
in 2001 found that these new issues were omnipresent in contemporary
news, with the addition of more celebrityrelated stories, which suggests that
modern news values have changed to accommodate this type of content.

Interestingly, these findings draw similarities to Franklin (1997), who suggests
that quality newspapers (such as the Telegraph, Times and Guardian) have
an increasingly tabloid agenda (1997: 274). Franklin also argues that
newspapers are incorporating more entertainment content as time
progresses:
The history of the British press, since the emergence of
popular journalism, has been a history of newspapers
increasingly shifting their editorial emphasis towards
entertainment.
Franklin (1997: 72)
It would be fair to assume, therefore, that this increase in tabloidstyle content
may have contributed to the decline in journalistic standards in quality
newspapers that McChesney describes. This argument is also supported by
Street, who notes that modern news values “place the world of showbusiness
and human interest stories above those about corruption and poverty” (2001:
150).
However, this is only part of the problem. Street goes on to suggest that news
is “the product of the availability, source and distribution of material resources
and interests” (2001: 155), indicating that political economy issues play a very
large role in the problem.

A number of commentators discuss the influence of corporate media agendas
over the production of news; and this is another area that could inform our
discussion of the decline in journalistic standards.
Lewis et al state that the newsgathering process is a casualty of the cost
cutting activities media corporations undertake to maintain profitability (2008:
29). Street notes that one of the main reasons for costcutting is fierce
competition in the industry, an example of which is the price wars initiated by
News International (2001: 128).
Lewis et al provide empirical evidence to show that quality UK newspapers
now employ fewer journalists to produce more content than 20 years ago
(2008: 29, 31), which results in the increased use of material from news
agencies and PR companies – what Lewis et al refer to as ‘news subsidy’
(ibid). This compromises the ability of journalists to perform their traditional
role of ‘gatekeeper’, in which they choose whether or not to publish a news
item depending on its level of news value (Bruns 2003: 32).
A number of studies have been conducted to investigate the amount of news
subsidy in the press, most notably by Cardiff University’s School of
Journalism, who provided background research for Flat Earth News by Nick
Davies. The study found that news subsidy constituted between 65 and 69
per cent of content in The Times, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and Guardian
(Lagan and Smith 2008) – resulting in a practice which Davies refers to as
“churnalism”, which is essentially “the mass production of ignorance” (ibid).

This practice has had a disastrous effect on the credibility of journalism, which
has drawn fierce criticism from commentators. Street notes that journalists
are now perceived “not as watchdogs, but as lapdogs” (2001: 151); and
Mitchell and Schoeffel (2003) refer to them as “sheep in wolf’s clothing”.
Street notes that, in order to address this issue, it is essential to address “the
wider trends affecting journalism” (2001: 150). This will be looked at in more
detail in the chapter on political economy later in this essay.
In chapter 2.3, theories on the rise of online news will be discussed, in an
attempt to investigate its practical implications for the media.
2.3 – News on the Internet
It’s not a [media] revolution, but an evolution.
Tony Birtley, Al Jazeera (cited in Monocle 2008)
Here, Birtley is referring to the constant development of news on the Internet
– stating its effect on the media is more evolutionary than revolutionary. This
suggests that it has the potential to enhance the media, rather than replace it,
as Keegan suggests in 2.1.

Indeed, audiences are migrating to the Internet as their primary source of
news in huge numbers. Herbert and Thurman state that immediately prior to
their US study in 2007, the Internet was “the most popular source of news for
people at work, and the second most popular at home… as well as the main
source of news for 50 million Americans” (2007: 208).
Allan states that there were two key ‘tipping points’ in the emergence of online
news (2006: 2–11). Firstly, he cites Rupert Murdoch’s speech to the annual
meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) on 13 April
2005, in which he defined two types of Internet user: ‘digital natives’, young
people who have grown up using computers and the Internet, and to whom
online technology is natural; and ‘digital immigrants’, those who are adapting
to new media from old media (2006: 2). Murdoch also stated the behavioural
differences between the two groups, suggesting that digital natives “want
control over their media, instead of being controlled by it… [and] a point of
view about not just what happened, but why it happened” (ibid: 3).
Allan’s second tipping point is the South Asian tsunami of December 2004,
which displayed the mainstream media’s inability to cover the disaster in the
same depth as locallybased ‘citizen journalists’, who were able to transmit
images and video footage, as well as provide coverage from within the
danger zone (Allan 2006: 6). Allan states that mainstream media coverage
was indicative of “helicopter journalism” for its detached and distant reporting,
unlike the “bottomup” coverage provided by citizen journalists (ibid). Bivens
states that many journalists recognise this event as the beginning of the rise

of user generated content in popular culture, due to the sheer influx of
images, videos, emails and text messages the media received from the public
(2008: 117).
However, Allan cites COO of News Corporation, Peter Chernin, who states
that online technology and user generated content are not threats to old
media, but rather an opportunity to connect its audience with compelling
content, without distribution constraints such as cost, distance and unreliable
technology (Allan 2006: 170).
A large number of theorists support this perspective. Lister et al argue that
“the scope of the ‘fourth estate’ is exponentially expanded by the rapid
development of web journalism” (2003: 177), and Chan and Leung state that
online news is a supplement, rather than an alternative, to print (2005: 375).
Interestingly, Herbert and Thurman suggest that there is evidence of a
“complementary relationship” between print and online news, particularly in
the case of a newspaper that publishes both formats: “while the printed
newspaper is more portable, tactile and flexible, the website offers
searchability, immediacy and ‘permanence’ of older content” (Herbert and
Thurman 2007: 214).
This idea of a complementary relationship also suggests that print and online
media serve different purposes. Indeed, Agger argues that the Internet will
never replace print, suggesting that in a world dominated by the computer
screen, paper functions as “the new prozac”, offering “a balm for the

distracted mind… contained, offline, tactile… an anchor for the
consciousness” (Agger 2008).
Allan notes that with this difference in form and function, the Internet creates
an entirely different culture for the production and dissemination of news
(2006: 60). At this stage, it is worth investigating theories of online news and
consumers, and the different forms in which news exists on the Internet.
Deuze identifies three characteristics of online journalism: hypertextuality,
multimediality and interactivity (2003: 212). He states that an intention of Ted
Nelson, the architect of hypertext, was to open up access to as much of the
Internet as possible (ibid), and Chan and Leung note that this allows the
consumption of news to become nonlinear, enabling a democratic open
content approach to information that doesn’t insist on readers remaining
within the constraints of one particular media (2005: 363). Robinson argues
that hypertext is “the new quotation marks, the new strategy of providing
credibility and objectivity” (2007: 317).
Deuze describes the wide use of multimedia as a “divergent journalistic news
culture”, a contrast to the traditional ideals of print journalism (2003: 212).
Chan and Leung state that this allows for ‘a rich sensory interface between
users and their machines, allowing the user to control the pace and sequence
of information’ (2005:363) – facilitating Murdoch’s suggestion that the user is
empowered to take control of their own media use, moving away from the
passive monodirectional dissemination patterns of old media (Allan, 2006: 2).

Deuze considers interactivity to be a completely different mode of addressing
the news audience, allowing users to disseminate as well as receive
information (2003: 212) – again suggesting active rather than passive news
consumption. This activity of disseminating existing news, as well as user
generated content, has enabled users to become ‘citizen journalists’ – a
concept that has divided the media into those who embrace it, and those who
reject it (Allan, 2006: 71). Online technologies such as blogs and wikis
provide a platform for users to experiment with citizen journalism (Allan: 44,
135), while technologies such as bookmarking (e.g. del.ici.ous) and
microblogging (e.g. Twitter) allow users to share existing news with other
users (Java et al 2007).
Due to this new culture of active news cosumption, Deuze suggests that
users should be referred to as ‘prosumers’ rather than consumers (2003:
212). But in contrast to the apparently positive impact increased levels of
interactivity have online, Street notes that increased participation in print
would be likely to detract from the quality of journalism (2001: 140),
suggesting that the number of voxpops, polls and letters in US newspapers
has not increased since the Internet began to facilitate increased levels of
interactivity in online news (ibid).
Indeed, Dahlberg has a less than idealistic view of the role of the Internet
user. He contests Deuze’s idea of the ‘prosumer’, instead arguing that users
remain generally passive, individualised, and focused on “individual pleasure

maximisation” (Dahlberg 2007: 840). Dahlberg’s argument would refute that
the Internet has drastically altered the relationship between purveyors and
consumers of news, despite the potential of new technology to increase
participation and interactivity.
Moving beyond his three features of online news, Deuze identifies four kinds
of online news media, and proposes a typological framework of online
journalism (2003). These four kinds of online news media constitute of
‘mainstream’, online versions of old media that hardly differ from print and
broadcast in their approach; ‘index and category sites’, incorporating news
aggregators (e.g. Yahoo! News) which offer little original news content,
despite their usage of mainstream content; ‘meta and comment sites’, which
include blogs and alternative news sites, offering critical commentary on
mainstream media and an open publishing environment without heavy
editing; and ‘share and discussion sites’, largely unedited platforms for
discussion of content found elsewhere on the Internet (e.g. Plastic.com)
(Deuze 2003: 209–211).
Deuze’s ‘typology of online journalisms’ model plots these news sites on two
axes, which differentiate between open and closed journalistic culture on the
vertical axis, and focus on editorial content and public connectivity on the
horizontal axis. The model is replicated in an adapted format in [fig 1]:

[Fig 1]
Closed journalistic structure
ORIENTATING MONITORIAL
Focus on public connectivity
Mainstream news sites
Focus on editorial content
Index and category sites
Meta and comment sites
Share and discussion sites
INSTRUMENTAL DIALOGICAL
Open journalistic structure
Deuze states that within this model, each segment represents a different type
of journalism. He notes that old media traditionally functions as ‘orientating’
journalism, with its closed journalistic structure and focus on content, thus
providing the public with a general, noninteractive orientation of the news
(2003: 217). Deuze notes that various studies have shown that many content
focused journalists are disengaged from the needs of their publics, but the
emergence of online news signifies a potential move towards a greater level
of understanding (ibid: 218). He suggests that the Internet offers the potential

to develop three new types of journalism, influenced by enhanced
connectivity and an open journalistic structure: ‘instrumental’, in which
journalists work with their readers to create a news story (ibid: 218);
‘monitorial’, where journalists provide content that is directly requested by
users, in a glorified ‘FAQ’style format (ibid: 219); and dialogical, which is the
opposite form of orientating journalism, removing traditional barriers to allow
both producers and consumers of news to adopt the role of ‘prosumer’ (ibid:
218).
As can be seen in [fig 1], orientating and dialogical journalism appear to be
the most natural forms, with each type of online news mainly falling into either
of these two categories. What the future holds for the potential of instrumental
and monitorial journalism, Deuze isn’t very clear about. However, Allan
provides an interesting example of a past attempt at instrumental journalism,
in his discussion of the LA Times’s ‘Wikitorial’ experiment in 2005 (2006:
138). According to Allan, the LA Times used wiki technology to enable its
readers to edit an article, previously written by journalists, on the war in Iraq.
However, Allan notes that within a matter of hours, the Wikitorial had to be
removed, due to attacks by vandals, and an uncontrollable number of edits
from thousands of users (ibid: 82). Clearly, this is evidence that mainstream
media are not yet ready to encourage reader participation in serious
journalism.
Deuze’s ‘typology of online journalisms’ model is useful to this study, as it
makes the seemingly complex functions of different types of online news

media much easier to visualise. It responds well to the question of whether
online news constitutes a new kind of journalism (Allan 2006: 26) – according
to Deuze, it constitutes three new kinds – but doesn’t appear to address the
fluctuating levels of quality that online news can display, nor the dynamic
between topdown and bottomup forms of reporting. In order to address
these issues, it is essential to consider the ways in which mainstream
journalism adapts to an online environment, and its interaction with user
generated content.
Boczkowski identifies three ways in which old media adapt their provision of
content for the Internet: through ‘repurposing’, which is the republication of
stories that were originally published in print; ‘recombining’, the detailed
extension of a story online, through providing links to other sources and
archives; and ‘recreating’, which is the creation of content exclusively for web
use, such as multimedia, and reader comment facilities (2004: 60). Boczkowki
refers to the third method as ‘recreating’, as he states that this new content is
still based on the “symbolic, behavioural and material repertoires” of print
journalism (ibid) – which again suggests that online news is not innovative in
its content, but rather its form; an idea that resonates with the discussion of
Lister et al’s concept of remediation in chapter 2.1.
Building on this argument, Boczkowski notes that despite the need for
mainstream media to adapt to the new 24hour culture of breaking stories
online, many convergent newsrooms are still structured on print newsroom
practices. He states: “the creation of newness [has] turned into the creative

production of sameness” (Boczkowski 2004: 74). As part of his study,
Boczkowski interviewed a number of journalists about how they perceived
their organisation’s ability to innovate, but he found the results to be less than
positive. One respondent from the New York Times suggested: “We cannot
be the avantgarde because we are the garde” (2004: 79), which suggests
that mainstream media are not destined to provide innovative content online,
but simply an online version of what they produce in print.
In spite of this apparent lack of innovation, it seems that mainstream news
content is still the definitive type of news content online. Deuze (2005) argues
that citizen journalism, such as blogging, is highly dependent on mainstream
news organisations, “whose output it debates, critiques, recombines, and
debunks” (Deuze 2005: 335). Bivens notes that this performs an important
function, in regulating the content of mainstream media, and ensuring a level
of transparency (Bivens 2008: 124). For Bivens, the advent of blogging
means that, for the first time, the content of the media can be thoroughly
regulated – a process that may function as a preventive measure for the
further decline of journalism, noted in chapter 2.2.
Deuze (2005) suggests that participatory journalism may provide an answer
to the future of online journalism, as it represents features of each of the four
types of journalism he identifies in his ‘typology of online journalisms’ (2003),
and fosters a sense of collaboration between journalists and the public (2005:
323). Deuze argues:

The fact that sites… manage to survive and, in some cases,
flourish in an already overcrowded attention economy, and
furthermore seem to generate relevant news for the
communities they serve, suggests that professionally
enhanced participatory journalism has legitimacy as a form of
news production in its own right.
(Deuze 2005: 335)
Journalist Dan Gillmor supports this argument by suggesting that participation
leads to the advantage of ‘collective intelligence’, where journalists can
benefit from the knowledge of their readers, in order to improve news
coverage (Gillmor 2003: 79). Deuze, however, notes that participatory
journalism does not provide a full answer to the decline of professional
journalism itself, nor is it likely to guarantee the success of news formats
outside of an online environment (ibid: 335).
Considering the rise of participatory journalism, and the ways in which
Boczkowski finds mainstream media content adapts to an online environment,
Bivens suggests that all developments affecting journalistic practice online
are mainly extensions of preexisting social behaviours, that previously
operated in a less visual manner before the rise of online news (Bivens 2008:
113). She identifies three major transformations to news media as a result of
online technology: apparent shifts in traditional cycles of news flow;
heightened public accountability of the media; and evolving news values
(ibid).

For Bivens, one of the key factors affecting news flow is the rise of user
generated content, which is now widely accepted by mainstream media
(2008: 115). She notes that this influx of user generated content has
encouraged many organisations to distribute it to eachother, as well as news
agencies, thus “reversing the traditional flow of news” (2008: 117). Through
talking to journalists, Bivens found that many consider the Internet to be a
valuable research tool, with many using Technorati (the blog indexing service
which, according to its ‘about’ page at technorati.com, indexes over 112.8
million blogs), to source potential news content (ibid: 118). Bivens notes,
however, that some traditional journalists criticise blogging as ‘vanity
journalism’ and ‘illinformed punditry’, which she considers narrowminded
when accounting for the fact that user generated content is often “the only
news coverage mainstream media can acquire” when reporting on such
events as the human rights violations in Zimbabwe (ibid: 119).
In her discussion about shifts in accountability, Bivens discusses the
phenomena of “Exposuregates” in which bloggers bring attention to corruption
and ineptitude in the mainstream media (2008: 120), such as the exposure of
the faked photos Reuters commissioned from Lebanese photographer, Adnan
Hajj. Bivens cites a positive response from Reuters editor, Paul Holmes:
Because of the blogging community, many of the more
egregious breaches of journalistic ethics have been exposed.

It makes the media much more accountable and much more
transparent.
Cited in Bivens (2008: 121)
This concept of transparency provides an important new news value for
Bivens, who states that it also provides an answer to longstanding issues of
a lack of objectivity in the press:
[The rise of online technologies] has taught news
organisations that transparency is of a higher virtue than
objectivity.
Bivens (2008: 125)
However, online practice has also led to a culture of immediacy which, for
Bivens, is a news value that impoverishes other areas traditionally equated
with quality news coverage, such as investigative journalism:
Investigative journalism tends to suffer in the new immediacy
environment since resources of news companies have
migrated from providing exclusive coverage as a measure of
performance, to providing realtime coverage as a measure of
performance.
Bivens (2008: 123)

Allan, on the other hand, notes that the immediacy of the Internet means that
updates to a news story can be published at any time, which is essential in
the coverage of disasters such as the South Asian tsunami in 2004, and the
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre in 2001 (Allan 2006: 25).
The issue of immediacy and the news media’s 24hour need for content
means that more pressure is placed on journalists to file more copy, not only
for print, but for their ever expansive online operations. Echoing Davies’s
criticism of ‘churnalism’ in chapter 2.2, Matheson cites Boczkowski who states
that a great deal of online content is ‘shovelware’, largely unmodified print
content and news subsidy (Matheson 2004: 444). Matheson also states that
there is “plenty of journalism on the Internet, but very little that is of the
Internet” (ibid).
With all of these conflicting arguments, it’s clear that the question of whether
the Internet has had a positive or negative impact on the media is still very
much in question. However, from the evidence uncovered here, it seems that
the effect is largely positive. One of the key achievements of online news is its
ability to reengage the increasingly alienated audience of its print counterpart
(Pavlik 2001: XI), and the characteristics of hypertextuality, interactivity and
multimediality postulated by Deuze play a very key role in this.
Robinson suggests that the developments in online journalism signify a move
away from the concept of the press as an ‘institution’, and towards the
provision of a ‘platform’ (Robinson 2007: 317). Additionally, Allan notes that

as ordinary people are defining and pursuing their own news agendas,
notions of ‘authority’, ‘credibility’ and ‘prestige’ are in a state of flux, whilst
“certain longstanding reportorial principles seeming tired, if not anachronistic”
(Allan 2006: 179). For the media purists, this may be a less than desirable
outcome, but for proponents of interactivity and the public at large, the
outcome can only be favourable.
2.4 – The Public Sphere
There is a great deal of debate regarding the concept of the public sphere,
first postulated by Jürgen Habermas in his 1962 book The Structural
Transformation of the Public Sphere, and whether it is an achievable idea –
particularly with regard to its possible existence online. Fundamentally,
Habermas argues that the mass media has a detrimental impact on the public
sphere, but a number of commentators suggest that the rise of the Internet
and online news media can provide a remedy to this issue, and in fact signify
a return to the values that are central to public sphere theory (Lister et al
2003: 177). In order to comprehensively discuss this area, it is useful to
investigate classic public sphere theory, as defined by Habermas, before
discussing contemporary interpretations.
Essentially, the public sphere is a metaphorical institution or practice, in which
public opinion on issues of public interest is formed, mediated with private

interests, and voiced by responsible members of the citizenry. For Habermas,
the public sphere existed in its truest form in the democratic arenas of Ancient
Greece, and the café society culture of the enlightenment in 17 th and 18 th
Century England (Durham and Kellner 2001: xviii) – the latter of which
Habermas referred to as the bourgeois public sphere, due to its bourgeois
and intellectual membership. Durham and Kellner note that the public sphere
was a metaphorical venue in which the citizenry were able to “discuss their
common public affairs and to organize against arbitrary and oppressive forms
of social and public authority” (ibid), thus establishing it as the epitome of
democracy (Papacharissi 2002:10). The concept of democracy, and the
problematic issues surrounding it, will be discussed in chapter 2.5.
Habermas notes that the bourgeois public sphere was effectively nurtured by
the press, which was sympathetic to its democratic goals:
The press remained an institution of the public itself, effective in
the manner of a mediator and intensifier of public discussion, no
longer a mere organ for the spreading of news but not yet the
medium of a consumer culture.
(Habermas 1989b: 76)
However, in Structural Transformation, Habermas also chronicles the decline
of the bourgeois public sphere as society began to embrace consumerism (De
Luca & Peeples 2001:128). For Habermas, the emergence of the mass media
and enfranchisement of the proletariat were factors in its demise (ibid;

Habermas 1989b: 77). Indeed, Dahlberg points out that, today, the mass
media cannot be considered sympathetic to democratic aims, with its
tendency to “draw societal voices into largely homogenous communicative
spaces bound by dominant discourse” (2007: 840).
Fraser points out that Habermas stopped short of developing a post
bourgeois public sphere, although he inferred that a new form would be
required to institutionalize the new ‘welfare state mass democracy’ that arose
in the late 20 th Century (Fraser 1992:112). Therefore, in follow up, a number
of theorists have postulated the existence of new public spheres, relevant to
contemporary society. Notably, Örnebring and Jönsson (2004) discuss the
concept of a ‘mediated public sphere’, where the public can access societal
dialogues in an open arena:
Whereas the central struggle in the bourgeois public sphere
was the struggle of one particular class to find a new place in
society, the central struggle in the mediated public sphere is
the struggle for visibility… [which] seems to indicate that the
media landscape could be described as consisting of a
mainstream and a number of alternative spheres.
(Örnebring and Jönsson 2004: 285)
Allan suggests that this struggle for visibility represents a formidable
challenge to the media. With users constantly looking for “the most interesting
and authoritative information” in a crowded marketplace, media organisations

need to constantly improve the quality of their content provision, or risk losing
readers to competitors (Allan 2006: 172). Indeed, Allan notes that ‘digital
natives’ – to use Murdoch’s coinage – do not seem to have the same brand
loyalty displayed by previous generations (ibid: 171).
Returning to Örnebring and Jönsson’s discussion of multiple spheres, Bivens
suggests that alternative media platforms outside of the mainstream media,
such as newsgroups, forums and blog communties, create ‘counterpublic
spheres’ (Bivens 2008: 126), an idea this is echoed by Reese et al (2007:
257). This is quite a deviation from Habermas, who was quite clear that the
bourgeois public sphere could only exist in the singular. However, Dahlgren
adds further weight to the multiplesphere argument, in his observation that
‘sociological realism points to the plural’ (2005:148). Dahlgren goes on to
conceptualize the contemporary public sphere as comprising three
dimensions: structures – the physical and metaphysical features that
constitute cybergeography (eg. social, economic and architectural factors);
representation – the specific groups, concepts and values that inhabit the
public sphere; and interaction – the onetomany format of traditional media,
and onetoone format of facetoface and online interaction (Dahlgren
2005:149). This tridimensional conceptualization is an important development
on classic public sphere theory, as it enables us to not only account for the
issues surrounding different types of news media, but also the extraneous
factors that affect their ability to provide a suitable arena for a public sphere to
operate.

Lister et al note that Habermas’s account of the public sphere is highly
serious, forgoing concepts of pleasure and desire in favour of ‘critical
reasoning’ (2003: 178). However, they suggest that on the Internet, “critical
reasoning is replaced by opinion and subjective comment” (ibid). They also
cite Mark Poster’s suggestion that the age of the public sphere as “face to
face talk” has come to an end, instead necessitating an account of
“electronically mediated discourse” (ibid: 220). This raises the question of
whether the Internet will become a new public sphere at all, or rather
something completely different, as suggested by Papacharissi (2002: 18).
If the Internet is to become a new public sphere, a number of issues will need
to be accounted for. Dahlberg succinctly points some of them out as follows:
Inequalities in access and participation, unreflexive
communication, corporate domination of online attention, and
state surveillance and censorship.
Dahlberg (2007: 828)
The most prominent issue of access is undeniably the digital divide, which
refers to the fact that the majority of the world’s population do not have access
to the Internet, most prominently in nonWesternised countries (Lister et al
2003: 199). However, Hargreaves and Thomas point out that the divide is also
economical, citing the differences between demographic groups in the UK,
with the most affluent having significantly higher rates of access (Hargreaves
and Thomas 2002: 46). Liser et al note that this issue is getting worse, citing

research in the US that suggests rates of access for the wealthy in the USA
are increasing much more rapidly than those of low income groups (2003:
199). Dahlberg suggests that the issue of the digital divide is even more
complex than it seems, however, stating that universal access – even if it was
possible – would provide more support for the dominant discourse, and more
attention needs to be paid to the effects of resource inequality on the fostering
of online discourse, than on alleviating the divide itself (Dahlberg 2007: 838).
With regard to the issue of participation, Papacharissi states that although
online technologies make participation in the public sphere more convenient,
they do not necessarily guarantee it (2002: 15). Lister et al note that the
Internet is often seen as “a potentially open channel for frightening information
to enter the home”, such as pornography, hackers, spyware and viruses
(2003: 181), and this can limit levels of participation. Of those that do
participate, however, Dahlberg notes the potential issue of fragmentation, in
which “insulated, deliberative enclaves of likeminded people” can form
extreme views, and polarise themselves from other similar groups (2007:
832). However, Robinson (2007) refutes this, suggesting that the Internet is
more likely to facilitate the interaction of polarised groups than put distance
between them, allowing users to engage with a multiplicity of perspectives
(2007: 313).
A further concern raised by Allen is that user participation in online news
media can be highly unrepresentative of society. He cites the example of
South Korean alternative news site Ohmynews, which has a 75 per cent male

membership, the majority of whom are in their 20s (Allan 2006: 131). It is,
however, worth comparing this example with the membership of Habermas’s
bourgeois public sphere, the majority of whom were young men, as defined by
his concept of universality (Habermas 1989).
In contrast to Habermas’s argument that the public sphere should focus on
issues of public interest, rather than the interest of the public (Habermas
1989), Harcup and O’Neill discuss the increasing tabloidisation of quality UK
newspapers (2001: 274). As discussed in chapter 2.2, this has led to the
postulation of entertainment and celebrity as contemporary news values (ibid).
Similarly, issues of political economy have led to the proliferation of PR and
news agency copy in mainstream media content – an issue that is getting
worse (Lagan and Smith 2008; Lewis et al 2008: 30).
There has been a wide critique of Habermas, which suggests that his
bourgeois public sphere was too idealistic, and not firmly enough rooted in
reality (Papacharissi 2002: 11). Beers suggests that ‘Habermas’s arguments
serve, if nothing else, as an ideal of what the media should be’ (2006: 110). It
is clear from the evidence discussed in this chapter that there are many
issues that would suggest that the Internet could not be a feasible home for a
Habermasian public sphere, at this stage at least. Although, as discussed,
commentators such as Papacharissi suggest that the Internet could develop
into a new arena, free from the idealistic constraints of the Habermasian
public sphere, and with a greater grounding in reality.

For the purpose of this essay, it is therefore essential to look at the reality of
the media, rather than the fantasy; and this will inform our discussion of
political economy, and Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model in chapter
2.6.
There is a great deal of evidence that suggests that many millions of people
are engaged in critical debate on the Internet, whether through serious
journalism, blogging, or participating in alternative news media (Allan 2006).
This idea of intense interactivity is fundamental to the Internet’s potential to
provide a democratic arena for debate – whether or not this arena can be
considered a public sphere in the classical sense.
The culture of citizenry modeled online… is one where news is
not passively received, but is challenged, corrected,
embroidered and, through individual agency, rippled outwards
into society.
Beers (2006: 119)
2.5 – The concept of democracy
[The public] sphere is seen as central to strong democracy,
enabling the voicing of diverse views on any issue, the

constitution of publiclyoriented citizens, the scrutiny of power
and, ultimately, public sovereignty.
Dahlberg (2007: 828)
If the public sphere is rooted in the pursuit of democracy, as is suggested by
Dahlberg and Papacharissi (2002: 10), then the concept of democracy
warrants a critical investigation in this essay.
In possibly the most quoted definition of democracy in history, former US
President Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as “government of the people,
by the people and for the people” in his famous Gettysburg address in 1863
(US DoS website 2008). Street (2001) cites a deeper definition by Jean
Elshtain:
A true democratic polity involves a deliberative process,
participation with other citizens, a sense of moral responsibility
for one’s society, and the enhancement of individual
possibilities through action in, and for, the res publica.
Elshtain, 1982 (cited in Street 2001: 219)
Dahlgren elaborates on this concept of deliberative democracy further, stating
that it “points to the procedures of open discussion aimed at achieving
rationally motivated consensus” (2005: 156).

These issues of participation, open discussion and consensus are at the heart
of debate over whether the Internet effectively serves democracy (Lister et al
2003: 173). Street identifies four problems that have limited participation in
modern democracies in the past – “time, size, knowledge and access” – and
suggests that electronic democracy has the potential to solve them, through
“opening up the possibility of full participation” (Street 2001: 217). However,
he also points out four criticisms of electronic democracy that limit this
potential (ibid: 218). Firstly, Street recognises the theoretical difficulties
inherent to democracy that cannot be addressed through the use of
technology alone, such as the problem with accurately measuring the
distribution of popular opinion. Secondly, he states that global access to
unlimited information is not necessarily beneficial, and that expert judgement
and dialogue are required to reach balanced decisions. Thirdly, Street
suggests that electronic democracy is “debased and impoverished”, citing
Walzer’s 1985 argument that pushbutton referenda on political issues erodes
the value in making decisions. And lastly, he states that “the technologies of
electronic democracy actually serve to promote the interests of the powerful”,
meaning that they exist to protect investments and profitability, rather than
creating mass opportunity for participation in political issues (2001: 218–220).
Street does, however, suggest that the rise of online technology has provided
new possibilities for democracy, although these must be subjected to a
political analysis due to the fact that forms of communication are “systems of
power” (ibid: 230).

However, media organisations are not necessarily antidemocratic, and
Curran and Seaton (1988) suggest three key ways in which the press serves
democracy: “It informs the electorate, oversees government, and articulates
public opinion” (1988: 287). However, Beers notes that the decline in
journalistic standards, identified in chapter 2.2 of this essay, are dangerous to
democracy, arguing that the press serve to indoctrinate, rather than inform,
the public (Beers 2006: 113).
Street states that the ability of journalism to serve democracy is fully
dependent on “the allocation of resources and the organisation of its
practices”, and more pertinently, the nature of news content, which can be
affected by bias, political affiliation, ownership and state regulation (Street
2001: 162, 272).
Indeed, McChesney argues that the concentration of media ownership
threatens to undermine democracy by compromising the free marketplace of
ideas (McChesney 2001: 101). However, Compaine refutes the notion that
such a level of concentration is taking place, suggesting that the constant
expansion of the Internet means that more people are taking a stake in
diverse media enterprises (2001: 109). Compaine also suggests that the
imperfect structure of the media organisations, and their occasional policy
mistakes, are an example of democracy at work, as they are constantly
evolving to accommodate new issues (ibid: 110).

However, it is certainly the case that external influences on the media can
have a more detrimental effect on its service to democracy. Street notes that
investigative journalism is essential to the preservation of democracy, but as
was discussed in chapter 2.2, this is declining as a result of the increasing
culture of immediacy online (Bivens 2008: 123). Influences such as political
spindoctoring and increased reliance on news subsidy also have a profound
effect, as they distort the mechanics of accountability (Street 2001: 148),
meaning that state and commercial interests beyond the media can influence
the shape of news content.
Fortunately, it appears that the rise of alternative news media, and citizenled
phenomena such as blogging, serve to counteract these influences. Allan
notes that blogging has had a profound political impact, reporting on issues
that have been ignored by the mainstream media, and producing tangible
results. Allan cites the example of US Senator Trent Lott, whose racist slur at
a function in 2002 went unreported by journalists at the event (Allan 2006:
78). However, the story broke in the blogosphere and developed to an extent
that could not no longer be ignored by the government, thus resulting in
Senator Lott’s resignation (ibid). Allan cites journalist and blogger Arianna
Huffington, who called this achievement “a victory for vox populi” and a
“democratic uprising” (Allan 2006: 82).
Clearly, the regulatory role of blogs and alternative news media provide
considerable scope for the democratization of the media landscape (Allan
2001: 121). However, as discussed in chapter 2.4, Dahlberg discusses the

danger that online groups can transform into “fragmented deliberative
enclaves”, thus posing a threat to social stability (Dahlberg 2007: 832).
With all of these issues in mind, it is useful to return to a quote by Kelly in
chapter 2.1, in which he refers to the Internet as “the largest working anarchy
in the world” (1995). It is important to note, however, that in the context of
online news media, anarchy is not necessarily the antithesis of democracy, as
technologies such as blogging enable the citizenry to voice their views on any
given subject and engage with a multitude of perspectives – qualities that are
at the very heart of democracy.
2.6 – The political economy of online news media
All journalism and advertising messages interact with each
other to influence society’s culture, politics, economics and
everyday life… All content is tied to money and power.
Robinson (2006: 846)
This statement provides a grim view of the modern press, and a considerable
move away from its traditional fourth estate function. As discussed in chapters
2.4 and 2.5, a balanced and responsible press is essential to the workings of
democracy, but these values have been confounded due to modern corporate
culture.

Throughout this discussion, a great deal of evidence has suggested that the
most influential factor in the apparent decline of professional journalism is the
political economy of the media. Of course, this is hardly surprising given the
sheer scope of political economy, which incorporates issues of ownership, the
economic factors surrounding production and consumption, the role of the
state, and competition between media companies (Lister et al 2003: 189).
Fundamentally, it is important to note that private sector media organisations
are run to generate profits, which are essential for these companies to exist,
produce content, and provide journalists with a livelihood (Compaine 2001:
20). However, as commercial interests, they are in fierce competition with
similar organisations to win these profits. Street notes that price wars in the
UK press have led to widespread costcutting, and as discussed in chapter
2.2, this has resulted in a lack of resources, and the ultimate decline of
journalism (Street 2001: 128).
Whether the Internet has had much of an effect on political economy is
doubtful. Bivens states that although it has been hoped that the shifting
balance of power online has weakened elite influence, “the perceived shift is
only small, and elite groups are adapting” (Bivens 2008: 115), and the
traditional power structures of old media seem to be very much in place in the
new media landscape (ibid).

However, the rise of new types of online news media have come equipped
with new business models and structures that have been developed in
opposition to the corporate culture of mainstream media (Allan 2006: 133). It
may prove useful, therefore, to assess whether or not they are susceptible to
the same issues of political economy as the mainstream media.
In order to provide this assessment, we will look to Herman and Chomsky’s
Propaganda Model, first proposed in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent,
which is widely regarded as the key framework in political economy (Sparks
2007: 68). Rampton notes that the Propaganda Model was devised in relation
to the mass media as it existed in 1988, and many of the issues that informed
its initial creation have changed over time. Therefore this chapter will provide
a dual discussion, considering the effects of political economy on online news
media, and whether the Propaganda Model is still a useful tool for providing
such an assessment.
Chomsky states that elite groups, such as powerful industry figures, exert an
“elite political spectrum” of influences over the government (Chomsky 2003:
15). Building on this contention, Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model
predicts that this entire range of political influences will be reflected in the
media (ibid).
In order to show that this is the case, Herman and Chomsky (2002: 2)
suggest that news items be subjected to the five filters contained within the
Propaganda Model. These filters expose the effects of proprietorial influence,

which skews editorial to reflect the interests of the media proprietor;
advertising, which biases editorial in favour of its financiers, and thus
confounding its perceived integrity; sourcing, which will utilize unquestioned
‘expert’ information provided by the elitist groups in question; flak, which will
threaten journalists with undesirable reprisals for not conforming to an
imposed editorial stance; and anticommunist ideology, which Chomsky later
states could be substituted for drugs, terrorism, or any feared phenomena
that could make people want to ‘shelter under the wings of authority’ (Mitchell
and Schoeffel 2003:18). This antidemocratic approach to media production
and content therefore seems to be in conflict with one of the key values of the
public sphere, which empowers the citizenry to oppose ‘arbitrary and
oppressive forms of social and public authority’ (Durham and Kellner 2001:
xviii).
Rampton (2007) explains that these five filters are an essential part of the
Propaganda Model, as they provide an explanation of how propaganda enters
the media without “an overt system of outright coercion or censorship”.
Sparks suggests that the Propaganda Model is a “model of clarity” (2007: 68),
and Chomsky himself states that it serves more as an observation than an
explanation (2003: 14).
Rampton states, however, that the model assumers a ‘onetomany’ structure
of reporting, as was widespread in the ‘command and control system’ of
media in 1988 – predating the rise of online news, which was not mentioned
in Manufacturing Consent (Rampton 2007). Rampton notes that online news

is also mediated in ‘onetoone’ and ‘manytomany’ structures, and it
incorporates “multiple audiences, interests and information channels” rather
than the single mass audience of the mass media in 1988 (ibid).
For Herman and Chomsky, the influence of media owners was mainly
economic, due to the huge investment required to operate a mass media
outlet. However, Rampton notes that today, a small investment is sufficient to
register and host a website, and the use of free opensource software can
create a website comparable in function to many mainstream news sites
(ibid).
In terms of the second filter, Herman and Chomsky identified the ‘price
marketingquality edge’ that media organisations had over their competitors
through large levels of advertising (Rampton: 2007). In return, advertisers
were able to exert an indirect influence over media content, although Street
notes that this influence is hard to prove, more likely affecting the kinds of
stories produced (i.e. garden and travel), rather than specific content (2001:
146). Rampton argues that advertising has less of an impact in online news,
with popup and banner adverts providing more of a “nuisance” than a “quality
advantage”. He also states that the majority of ads that proliferate the
blogosphere are run by Google ads, which uses a keyword search algorithm
to find content relevant to advertisers, rather than allowing advertisers to have
an influence over content. However, Marshall (2008) notes that many content
providers actively insert keywords into their news, in order to attract
advertisers and traffic to their site, thus resulting in relatively meaningless

content that is of little news value. Rampton states that alternative news sites
such as Wikinews refuse to place advertising, despite the potential of large
amounts of revenue, instead seeking donations from their users.
With regard to the third filter, Herman and Chomsky suggest that mainstream
media rely heavily on official sources, which biases news content towards the
state. Lewis et al provide evidence that this is still very much the case in the
British press, with the added sourcing of content from PR companies. Their
quantitative study showed that 38 per cent of the content of various quality
titles consisted of news subsidy, with a further 44 per cent from official
sources, compared to only 12 per cent original content from within the
newsroom (Lewis et al 2008: 30). However, Bivens states that the increasing
use of user generated content is providing relief to this dependence (2008:
115). Allan notes that the main source of content for blogs and other
alternative news media is the mainstream media itself (2006: 140), which
suggests that this too consists of content from official sources and news
subsidy, indirectly of course; although the use of hyperlinks to credit sources
provides a much greater degree of transparency (Bivens: 124).
In postulating the ‘flak’ filter, Herman and Chomsky refer to the fear of
journalists over negative responses to content, that may range in magnitude
from letters of complaint to libel cases (Rampton 2007). Rampton, however,
suggests that on the Internet, flak acts as little deterrent to free discourse, due
to the unlikelihood of mounting successful lawsuits (ibid). Conversely,
evidence of the regulation of mainstream media by bloggers and alternative

news media suggest that flak may now have a positive influence over news
content, establishing transparency (Bivens 2008: 124).
The anticommunism filter postulated by Herman and Chomsky is now
considered out of date, although as aforementioned, Chomsky states that this
can be substituted for any other product of fear (Mitchell and Schoeffel
2003:18). Rampton suggests “nationalism as an ideological control
mechanism” as a more general substitute. Citing the example of Ohmynews,
Allan argues that ‘anticorporate’, ‘antigovernment’ and ‘antiAmerican’
values also function as ideologies in the content of alternative news media
(Allan 2006: 133).
Rampton states that, despite these observations, the current situation is not
too far away from that which informed the Propaganda Model in 1988, largely
because traditional broadcast media are still the dominant force (Rampton
2007). He also notes that new techniques of influencing public opinion are
emerging in the age of new media, despite the specific filtering mechanisms
of the Propaganda Model not appearing to apply in the way they were
intended (ibid).
One significant difference between the mass media of 1988, and the new
media of 2008, is their ability to reflect on themselves critically. Chomsky
argues that the mass media is unwilling to recognise its own failure to serve
democracy, and therefore the Propaganda Model predicts its own irrelevancy
(2003: 17). In contrast, Deuze (2003: 208) suggests that online news media

seems to be highly transparent, displaying the “ability and willingness” to
publicly reflect on itself. Examples of this are the ‘journalism about journalism’
blogs discussed by Deuze (2003: 210), and The Editors blog at the BBC,
which covers issues from within the BBC newsroom (Bivens 2008: 124).
It seems, therefore, that despite the anachronistic appearance of the
Propaganda Model, it is still capable of exposing the influence of political
economy in mainstream and online news media.
2.7 – Summary
This literature review provides a comprehensive discussion of the current
state of mainstream media, and the issues surrounding the apparent decline
of professional journalism.
From the initial analysis of the rise of the Internet, and the subsequent
emergence of different types of online news and journalisms, it seems that
there has been little effect on the corporate culture of the mainstream media,
which is still subject to the same issues of political economy that Herman and
Chomsky exposed through the Propaganda Model in 1988. The media is still
heavily reliant upon advertising as its main source of revenue, and it requires
an ever increasing amount of content to fill its multimedia platforms, which it
sources through news subsidy.

The main victim in this saga is journalism itself, which has endured a
considerable fall from grace, due to compromises in its traditional role as
gatekeeper.
However, it seems that the resulting impact on the provision of information
has also had a detrimental effect on democracy, rendering Habermas’s
classic conception of the public sphere a farfromachievable ideal.
Despite this, the emergence of new types of news online has led to a vast
increase in participation, empowering the previously passive public to become
content producers in their own right. As discussed in chapter 2.4, this has
spawned the birth of a new kind of democratic arena online which, despite
clear divergence from classic public sphere theory, may provide a suitable
equivalent.
One particular group whose experiences have not been directly gauged in the
research discussed here is the participants in question, those who Murdoch
refers to as ‘digital natives’ (Allan 2006: 2).
Of course, much of the research on consumers discussed in this essay has
been conducted theoretically, in contrast to the quantitative analyses of the
experiences of journalists, and the empirical evidence provided on the depth
and breadth of media content.

The methodology of this study will therefore provide a quantitative study of
the experiences of digital natives, the ways in which they use online news
media, and their attitudes towards it. This method will provide an important
new perspective on the issues revealed in this review, and the following
discussion will evaluate whether digital natives are willing to engage with their
potential.
3.0 – METHODOLOGY
This study set out to evaluate the extent to which the impact has had a
transformational effect on the Internet, and its implications for public sphere
theory.
In the literature review, we have identified a number of perspectives on the
decline of journalism, the rise of the Internet, the emergence of various types
of online news media, and the new environment for enhanced participation.
We have also considered the extent to which these issues have affected
classic and contemporary conceptions of public sphere theory, and their
implications for democracy.
However, the literature review has uncovered a need for a quantitative
analysis of the needs of Internet users – Murdoch’s ‘digital natives’ (Allan
2006: 2), and Deuze’s ‘prosumers’ (2005: 335). The rationale for this is that

various theories have been postulated about the interactive role of Internet
users, but none have provided a firsthand account of their behaviours and
attitudes.
This paper approaches the topic in question from an antipositivist and
interpretevist theoretical background, as the personal and cultural values of
Internet users are central to the study.
A survey was conducted of students and graduates of Newcastle University,
from which a sample was established of 20 individuals who fit the
characteristics of a digital native. These 20 individuals were asked to fill out a
questionnaire comprising 13 questions, gauging their online consumption
habits and assessing the extent to which they actively participate in the post
dissemination of online news.
It is important to note here that all participants were fully informed of the
nature and objectives of the study, and gave full consent for their answers to
be reproduced. The only ethical consideration that the author can identify is
the role of bias, which is unavoidable due to the subjective nature of the
study. This bias arises from the low representative value of the study,
although the key purpose of this study is to assess the behaviours and
attitudes of a subgroup of society, which does not need to be generalised to
the wider public as a whole.

85 per cent of respondents are aged 21–30; ten per cent aged 31–40; and
five per cent were aged under 20 – thus fitting the profile of Mudoch’s digital
native.
The questionnaire, which was conducted through Surveymonkey.com, uses a
percentage score to determine the collective answers of respondents. Both
the questionnaire and results can be found in the appendix.
A small selection of the questions and answers will be provided here, and a
more comprehensive discussion will take place in the next chapter.
The first question asked respondents about their primary source of daily
news, whether it be newspapers/magazines, TV/radio, or the Internet. 70 per
cent of respondents stated that the Internet was their main source of news,
compared to 20 per cent TV/radio, and 10 per cent newspapers.
The second question required respondents to select their three main sources
of news on the Internet from the following list: broadcast news site, national
newspaper news site, local newspaper site, news portal, blog, alternative
media or discussion site. The most popular choices were broadcast news
sites with 95 per cent of respondents, and news portals with 45 per cent. The
least popular choices were local newspaper sites and alternative news sites,
with five per cent each.

The eighth question asked respondents whether they thought it was important
for news to be more interactive. The answers were more evenly split here,
with 40 per cent of respondents stating that they thought it should be more
interactive; 30 per cent who said it shouldn’t; and 30 per cent who indicated
no preference.
The implications of these results will be discussed in chapter 4.0.
4.0 – DISCUSSION
The results of the survey produced a number of surprising results, although
they roughly correlate with issues uncovered in the literature review in chapter
2.0.
The results of the first question are evidence of the importance of the Internet
as a source of news, with 70 per cent of respondents stating it is their primary
news source. This is to the detriment of print media, which only claimed 10
per cent of respondents, which in turn provides evidence that readership of
newspapers is declining – as suggested by Deuze in chapter 2.2. This
question does raise a methodological concern, however, which was not
apparent to the researcher at the time: it does not account for those who use
more than one type of media. Although in support of the question, it does ask
respondents for their ‘primary news source’, and illustrates the popularity of

the Internet as a news medium. Linking this to Q3, the majority of
respondents use online news more than once a day, which suggests they
have convenient access to the Internet.
The second question shows that the most popular form of online news are
broadcast news sites, such as BBC News Online, accounting for 95 per cent
of respondents. The results here show that digital natives are more likely to
use online news media with which they are most familiar, forgoing the
opportunity to experiment with alternative news media and discussion sites.
Indeed, the results of question seven provide evidence for this contention, as
20 and 25 per cent of respondents indicated that they were unsure of the
reliability of alternative and discussion sites respectively.
The majority of respondents in Q7 indicate, however, that they consider
blogs, alternative news and discussion sites to be unreliable. Although they
still consider broadcast and print media to be somewhat reliable sources of
news. This is an interesting result, considering the sheer scale of concern
over the decline or professional journalism, which was discussed throughout
the literature review. The key implication here is that digital natives are still
satisfied with the quality of mainstream news, despite its apparent lapse in
standards.
Questions four and five ask respondents whether reading news on the
Internet is more or less likely to make them read a newspaper, and vice
versa. In Q4, 50 per cent of respondents stated that the use of online news

would make them less likely to read print news. However, crucially, the
opposite was true in Q5, where the majority 35 per cent of respondents stated
that reading a newspaper would make them more likely to seek further news
online. This suggests that newspapers act as a marketing tool for online news
content – but online news does not return the favour. It is worthwhile noting,
however, that a large number of respondents in each case stated that their
use of one media would have no effect on their use of the other.
Q6 asks respondents about the number of sources they use to gain a
balanced perspective of news. The intention of this question was to establish
whether digital natives do, in fact, make use of the multitude of perspectives
available online (as discussed by Robinson 2007: 313) in order to gain an
objective perspective of news. The results here were mixed, with 25 per cent
of respondents stating that they use one source; 45 per cent two sources; and
30 per cent three or more sources. The implication here is that some digital
natives have more interested in the balanced reporting of news than others,
however the methodological limitations in this study mean that they could not
be identified at this stage. Future versions of this study may be wise to dig
more deeply into the individual news interests of respondents.
In Q8, respondents are asked whether they think it is important for news to be
more interactive. This is a straightforward attempt to gauge digital natives’
attitudes to the interactive nature of online news media, without the positive
hype that generally surrounds it. Results were again mixed, with 40 per cent
of users stated that interactivity is important, and 30 per cent disagreeing. In

future studies, it may prove useful to ask why they have chosen their answer,
as they may be badly, or indeed well informed about the issues surrounding
interactivity. Interestingly, 30 per cent of respondents registered a vote of no
preference, which suggests that they are apathetic to interactivity in news.
Questions nine and ten probe respondents about their attitudes towards
political economy. Q9 asks whether respondents have detected the influence
on news content of media owners, the government, PR companies and
advertisers; and Q10 questions whether they feel this influence is acceptable.
Although, again, the results are quite mixed, the majority of respondents
detected some level of influence in all cases. But crucially, the majority of
respondents stated that the influence of media owners and the government is
acceptable, whilst the influence of PR companies is not. Fascinatingly,
respondents are torn over whether or not the influence of advertising is
acceptable, with 40 per cent in each case. This suggests that issues of
political economy are not as worrying to digital natives, as they are to
commentators such as Herman and Chomsky.
In Q11, respondents stated the extent to which they feel satisfied with the
provision of print and online news in the UK. The majority of respondents
indicated they are satisfied with print news, with only a single respondent
stating dissatisfaction. With regard online news, there is a 50/50 split between
‘very satisfied’ and ‘satisfied’. This suggests that, again, digital natives are not
as concerned with the apparent decline in journalistic standards, but are
indeed happy with news provision in the media.

Finally, Q12 aims to assess whether digital natives are in fact ‘prosumers’, as
stated by Deuze (2003: 212), by asking about their use of various online
technologies to pass news on to others. For the most part, it seems that few
engage in the dissemination of news in an advanced manner, with the
majority of respondents indicating their use of email and Facebook, but very
few using blogs and microblogs (i.e. Twitter), and none using the more
specialised Digg and del.ici.ous. A large number of respondents state that
they didn’t disseminate news content at all, which suggests that Deuze’s
concept of the ‘prosumer’ may be more idealistic than realistic.
5.0 – CONCLUSION
This study takes a very broad look at the issues surrounding the Internet’s
impact on the media, covering theoretical and practical issues, as well as the
key debates surrounding political economy.
The largescale literature review is perhaps an unusual approach, but within
this context it is essential in order to gain a holistic view of the intersecting
issues that are relevant to the study. Indeed, the literature review only
contains a fragment of the vast amount of research uncovered by the author,
and the challenge of tying it together into a logical argument often proved
problematic. However, the picture it builds is very illuminating.

By tempering this monstrous discussion with a smallscale empirical study,
this essay has been able to deduce a number of key points about whether the
Internet has had a truly transformational effect on the media, by not only
considering the role of the mass media and journalists, but also the
relationships between different types of news media, and the behaviours and
attitudes of endusers.
Ultimately, this study finds that, despite the vast opportunities provided by
online technologies, the Internet has not had the transformational effect on
the media that many suggest. The notion of ‘sameness’ appears to be woven
into the very fabric of the Internet, from Lister et al’s discussion of remediation
in chapter 2.1, and Boczkowski’s concept of the repurposing, recombining
and recreating of online news content in chapter 2.2, to Bivens’ argument that
the media have retained the same structures of power, despite the
empowerment of the citizenry through electronic democracy.
Indeed, the empirical evidence this study provides about the news
consumption behaviours of digital natives suggests that they are not poised to
topple the mass media with their new found enfranchisement, but are
satisfied with the media as it is, and are happy to remain as consumers,
rather than prosumers – the same as they have always been.
If anything, the Internet may serve to keep the media on its toes, and not
become complacent. In an overcrowded marketplace, the media need to
provide a consistent stream of quality news content, in order to maintain the

interests of readers. And the watchful eye of bloggers and alternative news
media will continue to regulate mainstream media, and ensure a level of
transparency.
With regard to the Internet’s implications for public sphere theory, the story is
very much the same. As the Internet is subject to the same political economic
factors as the media, the very factors that have long served as the primary
antagonist of classic public sphere theory, it may well be the case that the
Internet develops into a different kind of arena altogether.

References
Agger, M. (2008) Lazy eyes: how we read online available at
www.slate.com/id/2193552 (cited 11 July 2008, 16:36 GMT)
Allan, S. (2006) Online News. Maidenhead: Open University Press
BBC News Online (2008) Twothirds of UK homes now online available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7582081.stm (cited on 24 August 2008,
17:30 GMT)
Beers, D. (2006) The Public Sphere and Online, Independent Journalism.
Canadian Journal of Education. 29 (1) pp. 109—130)
Belo, R. (2004) Online games play with politics. BBC News Online. Available
at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/I/hi/technology/4086299.stm (cited 14 January 2007
at 11:05 GMT)
Bivens, R.K. (2008) The Internet, Mobile Phones and Blogging Journalism
Practice 2 (1) pp. 113–129
Boczkowski, P. (2004) Digitizing the News: Innovation in Online Newspapers
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Bruns, A. (2003) Gatewatching, not gatekeeping: Collaborative online news.
Media International Australia. 107 pp. 31—44
Chan, J.K. and Leung, L. (2005) Lifestyles, reliance on traditional news media
and online news adoption. New Media & Society. 7 (3) pp. 357—382
Chan, J.M., Lee, F.L.F. and Pan, Z. (2006) Online news meets established
journalism: how China’s journalists evaluate the credibility of news websites.
New Media & Society. 8 (6) pp. 925—427

Chomsky, N. (2003) Understanding Power: the indispensable Chomsky.
(Edited by Peter R. Mitchell & John Schoeffel). London: Vintage
Compaine, B. (2001) The myths of encroaching global media ownership in
Hassan, R. & Thomas, J. (eds) The New Media Theory Reader (2006)
Maidenhead: Open University Press (pp. 106–110)
Curran, J. and Seaton, J., 2003. Power without responsibility : the press,
broadcasting, and new media in Britain. London: Routledge
Dahlberg, L. (2007) Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: from
consensus to contestation New Media & Society 9 pp. 827–847
Dahlgren, P. (2005) The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political
Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation. Political Communication. 22 pp.
147—162
De Luca, K.M. and Peeples, J. (2002) From Public Sphere to Public Screen:
Democracy, Activism, and the ‘Violence’ of Seattle. Critical Studies in Media
Communication. 19 (2) pp. 125—151
Deuze, M. (2003) The web and its journalisms: considering the consequences
of different types of newsmedia online. New Media & Society. 5 (2) pp. 203—
230
Deuze, M., Bruns, A. and Neuberger, C. (2005) Preparing for an age of
participatory news Journalism Practice 1 (3) pp. 322–338
Durham, M.G. and Kellner, D.M (2001) Media and Cultural Studies:
KeyWorks. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Franklin, B. (1997) Newszak and News Media. London: Arnold
Fraser, N. (1992) Rethinking the Public Sphere: a contribution to the critique

of actually existing democracy. In Calhoun, C. (ed) Habermas and the Public
Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (pp. 109—42)
Galtung, J. & Ruge, M. H. (1965): The Structure of Foreign News. The
Presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in Four Norwegian
Newspapers. Journal of Peace Research. 2 pp. 64—91
Gillmor, D. (2003) Moving towards participatory journalism Nieman
Reports. 57 (3): pp. 79–80
Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D.F. (1996) Democracy and Disagreement
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.
Cambridge MA: MIT Press
Habermas, J. (1989b) The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article In Durham,
M.G. and Kellner, D.M (eds) Media and Cultural Studies: KeyWorks (2001)
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing (pp. 73–78)
Harcup, T., & O’Neill, D. (2001) What is News? Galtung and Ruge revisited
Journalism Studies 2 (2) pp. 261–280
Hargreaves , I. & Thomas, J. (2002) New News, Old News ITC/BSC.
Available at
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/bsc/pdfs/research/news.pdf (cited 13
January 2007, 19:00 GMT)
Held, D. (2006) Models of Democracy Palo Alto: Stanford University Press
Herbert, J. & Thurman, N. (2007) Paid content strategies for news websites
Journalism Practice 1 (2) pp. 208–226

Herman, E.S. and Chomsky, N. (2002) Manufacturing Consent: The Political
Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books
Herman, E.S. (2003) The Propaganda Model: a retrospective. Available at:
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20031209.htm (cited 20 January 2008,
11:10 GMT)
Keegan, K., 1995. The Digerati! The New York Times Magazine [ 21 st May
1995]. New York: The New York Times Company
Kelly, K., 1995. Out of Control: The new biology of machines, social systems
and the economic world. Available at: www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch5e.html
(cited 6th January 2007, 17:00 GMT)
Lagan, S. & Smith, P. (2008) ‘Churnalism’ study claims news mainly PR and
wire copy Press Gazette 1 February
Lewis, J., Williams, A. & Franklin, B. (2008) For Rumours and an Explaination
Journalism Practice 2 (1) 27–45
Lister, M., Dovey, J. Giddings, S., Grant, I., & Kelly, K. (2003) New Media: a
critical introduction Oxon: Routledge
Lowrey, W. & Mackay, J.B. (2008) Journalism and Blogging Journalism
Practice 2 (1) pp. 64–81
Matheson, D. (2004) Weblogs and the epistemology of the news: some trends
in online journalism. New Media & Society. 6 (4) pp. 443—468
McChesney, R.W. (2001) Policing the thinkable in Hassan, R. & Thomas, J.
(eds) The New Media Theory Reader (2006) Maidenhead: Open University
Press (pp. 101–105)

McIntosh, S. (2008) Collaboration, consensus and conflict Journalism Practice
2 (2) pp. 197–211
McLuhan, M., 1962. The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Meikle, G., 2002. Future Active: Media activism and the Internet. New York:
Routledge
Mitchell, P.R. and Schoeffel (2003) Understanding Power: the indispensable
Chomsky – footnotes. Available at:
http://www.understandingpower.com/Chapter1.pdf (cited 19 January 2008.
14:00 GMT)
Monocle (2008) Digital News Affairs Conference news report [video footage]
available at http://www.monocle.com/sections/culture/WebArticles/The
DigitalNewsAffairsConforence/ (accessed 9 June 2008 19:00 GMT)
Mosco, V. (2005) The digital sublime : myth, power, and cyberspace London:
MIT
Örnebring, H. and Jönsson, A.M. (2004) Tabloid Journalism and the Public
Sphere: a historical perspective on tabloid journalism. Journalism Studies. 5
(3) pp. 283—295

Papacharissi, Z. (2002) The virtual sphere. New Media & Society. 4 (1) pp.
9—27
Pavlik, J.V. (1999) New media and news: implications for the future of
journalism. New Media & Society. 1 (1) pp. 54—59
Pavlik, J.V. (2001) Journalism and New Media. New York: Columbia
University Press
Poster, M. (1995) The Net as a Public Sphere? Wired Magazine 3 (11)
[November 1995]. Available at:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.11/poster.if.html (cited 21 November
2007, 20:40 GMT)
Rampton, S. (2007) Has the Internet Changed the Propaganda Model?
Center for Media and Democracy available at
www.prwatch.org/node/6068/print (cited 10 June 2008, 14:50 GMT)
Reese, S.D., Rutigliano, L., Hyun, K. & Jeong, J. (2007) Mapping the
blogosphere Journalism 8 (3) pp. 225–261
Reilly, T. (2005) What is web 2.0 available at
www.oreilly.net.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/whatisweb20.html
(cited 4 August 2008, 19:46 GMT)
Robinson, S. (2007) “Someone’s Gotta Be In Control Here” Journalism
Practice 1 (3) 305–321
Song, Y. (2007) Internet news media and issue development: a case study on
the roles of independent online news services as agendabuilders for antiUS
protests in South Korea New Media & Society 9 pp. 71–92

Sparks, C. (2007) Extending and Refining the Propaganda Model
Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 4 (2) pp. 68–84
Stevenson, N. (2002) Understanding Media Cultures London: Sage
Street, J. (2001) Mass Media, Politics and Democracy Basingstoke: Palgrave
US Department of State website (2008) Defining Democracy available at
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm (cited 4 August
2008, 12:18 GMT)
Wasserman, E. (2006) Ethical Journalism in the Internet Age. Available from:
http://journalism.wlu.edu/knight/Lectures/05082006.htm (cited 10th January
2007, 18:15 GMT)

APPENDIX

News questionnaire
1. Which of the following is your main source of daily news?
Response Response
Percent Count
Newspaper or magazine 10.0% 2
TV or radio 20.0% 4
The Internet 70.0% 14
None of the above 0.0% 0
Other (please specify) 0
answered question 20
skipped question 0
2. Which of the following are your main sources of news on the Internet? Please select three.
Response Response
Percent Count
Broadcast news website (e.g. BBC

95.0% 19
News Online)
National newspaper website (e.g.

40.0% 8
Telegraph.co.uk)
Local newspaper website (e.g.

5.0% 1
JournalLive)
News portal (e.g. Google News,

45.0% 9
Yahoo News)
Blogs 20.0% 4
Alternative media (e.g. Wikinews) 5.0% 1
Discussion site (e.g. Plastic.com) 10.0% 2
None of the above 5.0% 1
skipped question 0
Page 1
3. Which of the following best describes how often you read news on the Internet?
Response Response
Percent Count
More than once a day 55.0% 11
Daily 30.0% 6
Weekly 10.0% 2
Occasionally 5.0% 1
Never 0.0% 0
skipped question 0
4. Is reading news on the Internet more or less likely to make you read a newspaper?
Response Response
Percent Count
More likely 5.0% 1
Less likely 50.0% 10
No effect 45.0% 9
skipped question 0
5. And conversely, is reading a newspaper more or less likely to make you access news on the Internet?
Response Response
Percent Count
More likely 35.0% 7
Less likely 20.0% 4
No effect 45.0% 9
skipped question 0
Page 2
6. Do you use various sources to gain balanced perspectives on news, or usually rely on one source?
Response Response
Percent Count
Three or more sources 30.0% 6
Two sources 45.0% 9
One source 25.0% 5
skipped question 0
7. How reliable do you consider the following types of news to be, in terms of accuracy and truthfulness?
Somewhat Very Response

Very reliable Unreliable Unsure
reliable unreliable Count
News on television or radio 25.0% (5) 55.0% (11) 20.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20
National newspaper 15.0% (3) 70.0% (14) 5.0% (1) 10.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 20
Local newspaper 10.5% (2) 52.6% (10) 15.8% (3) 15.8% (3) 5.3% (1) 19
Broadcast news website (e.g. BBC

55.0% (11) 40.0% (8) 5.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20
News Online)
National newspaper website (e.g.

20.0% (4) 65.0% (13) 10.0% (2) 5.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 20
Telegraph.co.uk)
Local newspaper website (e.g.

5.0% (1) 65.0% (13) 15.0% (3) 10.0% (2) 5.0% (1) 20
JournalLive)
News portal (e.g. Google News,

5.9% (1) 64.7% (11) 11.8% (2) 5.9% (1) 11.8% (2) 17
Yahoo News)
Blogs 0.0% (0) 25.0% (5) 50.0% (10) 20.0% (4) 5.0% (1) 20
Alternative media (e.g. Wikinews) 5.0% (1) 15.0% (3) 45.0% (9) 15.0% (3) 20.0% (4) 20
Discussion site (e.g. Plastic.com) 5.0% (1) 10.0% (2) 35.0% (7) 25.0% (5) 25.0% (5) 20
skipped question 0
Page 3
8. Do you think it's important for news to be more interactive, (e.g. to enable you to share your views)?
Response Response
Percent Count
Yes 40.0% 8
No 30.0% 6
No preference 30.0% 6
skipped question 0
9. Do you feel the following have an influence over the news you read, and if so how much?
Response
Heavy influence Some influence No influence Unsure
Count
Media owners 40.0% (8) 40.0% (8) 20.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 20
Government 15.0% (3) 75.0% (15) 10.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 20
PR companies 30.0% (6) 40.0% (8) 20.0% (4) 10.0% (2) 20
Advertisers 10.0% (2) 50.0% (10) 35.0% (7) 5.0% (1) 20
skipped question 0
10. And do you feel this influence is acceptable?
Response
Yes, it's acceptable No, it's unacceptable Unsure
Count
Media owners 60.0% (12) 30.0% (6) 10.0% (2) 20
Government 60.0% (12) 30.0% (6) 10.0% (2) 20
PR companies 20.0% (4) 55.0% (11) 25.0% (5) 20
Advertisers 40.0% (8) 40.0% (8) 20.0% (4) 20
skipped question 0
Page 4
11. On the whole, do you feel satisfied with the provision of news in the UK?
Response
Very satisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied
Count
Print 30.0% (6) 65.0% (13) 5.0% (1) 20
Online 50.0% (10) 50.0% (10) 0.0% (0) 20
skipped question 0
12. Do you use any of the following web tools to pass on news you think might be of interest to others? Please select as many
as applicable.
Response Response
Percent Count
Blog 27.8% 5
Digg 0.0% 0
del.ici.ous 0.0% 0
Facebook 44.4% 8
Twitter 16.7% 3
Email 61.1% 11
None of these 27.8% 5
skipped question 2
Page 5
13. What age are you?
Response Response
Percent Count
Under 20 5.0% 1
21–30 85.0% 17
31–40 10.0% 2
41–50 0.0% 0
51–60 0.0% 0
61–70 0.0% 0
70+ 0.0% 0
skipped question 0
14. Thanks for taking the time to complete this survey. If you'd like a copy of the results, please type your email address in the
box below.
Response
Count
answered question 7
skipped question 13
Page 6
NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, COMMUNICATION AND LANGUAGE SCIENCES
MA PROGRAMMES IN MEDIA ASSESSMENT & FEEDBACK FORM
Module Code: MA Dissertation: 2007/ 2008 Semester: 1 2 (please circle)
Due Date: 2008 Student Name: Dan Howarth

NB: Marks are not calculated directly from the tick boxes below, nor is the weight assigned to each category
necessarily equal
70-100 60-69 50-59 49-40 39-0

Distinction Good Pass Pass Fail Fail
Knowledge and understanding
Theoretical dimension x
Conceptual quality x
Argument and critical thinking
Developed argument x
Critical engagement x
Research (if applicable)
Empirical dimension x
Quality of evidence/data x
Professional practices (if
applicable)
Theory informed practice
Industry standard output
Presentation
Bibliographical sources x
Organisation x
Language x
Additional Comments:
Topic: Internet’s transformational effect on the media and implications for public sphere theory
Feedback and Comments
This dissertation is well researched and well written. The first section enters a sophisticated debate about the
public debates evolving around the internet, setting the stage for the analysis of the internet’s transformational
potential. The link made between news media gathering processes and the internet is effective. A good
summary of the decline in journalistic standards is produced, demonstrating a thorough reading and
understanding of the literature. Despite a somewhat uncritical use of Lewis and Street in assessing the changes
in journalism practice, a number of excellent key points are made. Audience migration to the internet is
successfully outlined as is the idea of the complementary connections between print and online news. There is
a sudden jump to the public sphere, but this section is effective in developing some of the major earlier points
raised about blogging and participatory journalism. Issues relating to the digital divide, participation are well
covered in this section. A lucid debate about Chomsky’s model provides insights into the influence of filters
such as media owners. The case study is well executed and delivers some perceptive findings about ‘digital
natives’ etc.
Mark: Marker: Second Marker:

75% Deborah Chambers

Online News & The Public Sphere

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Online News & The Public Sphere

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

With explicit reference to the rise of online news,

decline in professional journalism, and an increasingly alienated audience.

This study provides a comprehensive review of literature surrounding print

efficient mode of communication. Since its emergence as a popular medium

literature of cyberpunk, such as William Gibson’s dystopian novel

Although its interconnectivity and global outreach have led many

theorists into a frenzy in their efforts to characterize its features, and predict

review, covering issues surrounding the Internet, mainstream news media,

the change in economy that came with the industrial

considered a transformative technology as some theorists believe

a sub­genre of writing that became popular with web­professionals,

commentators and technology journalists when the Internet entered popular

of the citizenry that oppressive 20 th Century institutions –

establishmentarian ideology, and is something Mosco would consider highly

UFO sightings than, say, to grapple with the constitutional

development, Web 2.0 is associated with mass participation, convergence

Internet’s ability to be considered a transformative technology. McLuhan

Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 10

News media have garnered the authority of a political

institution, in part because of its [sic] standardized routines

(2001), this concern is widespread amongst theorists and media

The measure of the decline in professional journalism is

Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 11

agenda of newspapers (ibid: 277). Harcup and O’Neill’s own empirical study

Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 12

newspapers are incorporating more entertainment content as time

popular journalism, has been a history of newspapers

increasingly shifting their editorial emphasis towards

newspapers that McChesney describes. This argument is also supported by

Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 13

Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 14

Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 15

Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 16

“complementary relationship” between print and online news, particularly in

searchability, immediacy and ‘permanence’ of older content” (Herbert and

Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 17

Deuze identifies three characteristics of online journalism: hypertextuality,

consumption of news to become non­linear, enabling a democratic open­

Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 18

generated content, has enabled users to become ‘citizen journalists’ – a

135), while technologies such as bookmarking (e.g. del.ici.ous) and

Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 19

mainstream media and an open publishing environment without heavy

Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 20

Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 21

connectivity and an open journalistic structure: ‘instrumental’, in which

opposite form of orientating journalism, removing traditional barriers to allow

Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 22

Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 23

Boczkowski interviewed a number of journalists about how they perceived

news organisations, “whose output it debates, critiques, recombines, and

Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 24

flourish in an already overcrowded attention economy, and

furthermore seem to generate relevant news for the

communities they serve, suggests that professionally

coverage (Gillmor 2003: 79). Deuze, however, notes that participatory

Bivens suggests that all developments affecting journalistic practice online

are mainly extensions of pre­existing social behaviours, that previously

Dan Howarth │ MA Media and Journalism │ 2008 25

however, that some traditional journalists criticise blogging as ‘vanity

journalism’ and ‘ill­informed punditry’, which she considers narrow­minded

Because of the blogging community, many of the more

egregious breaches of journalistic ethics have been exposed.

a subgenre of writing that became popular with webprofessionals,

consumption of news to become nonlinear, enabling a democratic open

are mainly extensions of preexisting social behaviours, that previously

journalism’ and ‘illinformed punditry’, which she considers narrowminded

such as newsgroups, forums and blog communties, create ‘counterpublic

constitute cybergeography (eg. social, economic and architectural factors);

public sphere; and interaction – the onetomany format of traditional media,

and onetoone format of facetoface and online interaction (Dahlgren

which “insulated, deliberative enclaves of likeminded people” can form

confounding its perceived integrity; sourcing, which will utilize unquestioned

and Schoeffel 2003:18). This antidemocratic approach to media production

marketingquality edge’ that media organisations had over their competitors

Allan argues that ‘anticorporate’, ‘antigovernment’ and ‘antiAmerican’